Fortnight For Freedom: Why Do We Celebrate the Fourth?




Why do we observe Independence Day on the Fourth of July each year?  Is it merely a historical commemoration, or is it because the lightning words of the Declaration of Independence still have meaning and relevance today?  This is not a new issue.  In the debate over slavery which embroiled this nation a century and a half ago, the phrase “all men are created equal” from the Declaration was argued and fought over.  On June 26, 1857, Abraham Lincoln, in response to the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, contended in a speech in Springfield, Illinois, that the phrase “all men are created equal” applied to blacks as well as whites:

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, nor for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and objects of that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares that “all men are created equal.”

Now let us hear Judge Douglas’ view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is:

“No man can vindicate the character, motives and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all men to have been created equal—that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain—that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.”

My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it—see what a mere wreck—mangled ruin—it makes of our once glorious Declaration.

“They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain!” Why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America are not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure, but the French, Germans and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge’s inferior races. I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that having kicked off the King and Lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a King and Lords of our own.

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it merely “was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.” Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now—mere rubbish—old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won.

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the “Fourth,” tomorrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate; and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose after you read it once in the old fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas’ version. It will then run thus: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain.”

And now I appeal to all—to Democrats as well as others,—are you really willing that the Declaration shall be thus frittered away?—thus left no more at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past? thus shorn of its vitality, and practical value; and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it?

We do not merely remember a historical event on the Fourth.  We celebrate the Declaration of Independence on the Fourth, because the truths that it expounds, that inalienable rights come from God, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that people have a right to revolt when a government becomes destructive of those  God-given rights, are as relevant, and as radical, today, as they were on July 4, 1776.

More to explorer


  1. There is a difference between equality in dignity and equality in function. All human beings – young or old, black or white, gay or straight, male or female, Christian or Jew, etc. ad nauseam – are created equal in dignity. But all human beings are unequal in function – not superior or inferior but different, diverse. A woman can bear a baby. A man cannot. An adult can drive a car. A baby cannot. A priest can confect the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. A priestess cannot. A math genius can do calculus in his head and a language genius can understand many different tongues. No one in those examples is inferior or superior to the other. But they are ALL unequal in function. Could then black people be better at certain functions natural to their race than white people, or vice versa? Why not? They are different one from the other (perhaps because God likes diversity – I so love turning liberal clap rap on its head), but each is a human being created in the Image and Likeness of God Almighty, and thus each is equal to the other in dignity. Why is this so difficult to understand?

    PS, lest anyone goes off the deep end, long before I married I had dated a drop dead gorgeous black woman (I am a white man in case you didn’t guess) whom I absolutely adored. Being a nurse and working on becoming a medical doctor, she was super smart too – smarter than me (but maybe that doesn’t take so much – ha! ha!). Sadly, her father did not adore me. It’s called reverse prejudice or reverse racism. I still think fondly of her (but not so much her father).

  2. My favorite founders, Jesse Ventura and John Wilkes Booth, lol… these “man on the street” bits are always funny and yet depressing. Many of those folks vote.

  3. The second to the last guy with the Irish “Beer” tee shirt was almost surely visiting from Boston; and I think the last lady definitely had a “New” England accent.

    Maybe it’s the local history, maybe the schools are better, or maybe we have to work like squirrels here preparing for winter with little natural resources except our brains, but I simply cannot imagine any teenager I know in my suburb of Boston who would not know the answer to those questions.

    (Before anyone says it, my suburb almost always votes Republican.)

  4. The liberal “progressives do not allow our Founding Principles and our civil rights, our unalienable civil rights to be taught and learned in public school, public school bought and paid for with our hard earned tax dollars.

  5. LQC “Sadly, her father did not adore me. It’s called reverse prejudice or reverse racism. I still think fondly of her (but not so much her father)..”
    It is called loving your own and wanting to see more of them.

  6. Mary De Voe wrote: “It is called loving your own and wanting to see more of them.”

    Really? No inter-racial marriage because white people must love their own and want to see more of them, and black people must love their own and want to see more of them?

    If that’s the case, then I ought not to have eventually married a Filipina. Or were St. Paul’s words in vain when he wrote there is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free before God?

  7. LQC It is a personal choice that persons have in FREEDOM. In my neighborhood there are more than several inter racial marriages and more loving families I have yet to see. Filipino people are my favorite nation, and I am Polish. When you first mentioned that your spouse was Filipina, I was glad for you. They are a gentle and loving people.
    In explanation, I believe that grandparents want to see themselves in their grandchildren.

  8. Agreed, Mary. However, it is not the father’s decision on whom his 30 year daughter choses to marry. I can understand that he may want purely black grandchildren, but his daughter’s FREEDOM demands that he acquiesce to her decision. As it however turned out, she acquiesced to his. Again, it was her free choice and we remained friends ever after that. I neither hated her father nor was angry with her – her life, her decision.

    PS, that one thing in my life always amazed me. For whatever reason I never got a resentment over that whole thing. Maybe the 12 steps were starting to work in my life instead of me always fighting against them.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: